Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

Appendices III & IV * Failure Data (Appendix III) * Common Mode Failures - Bounding Techniques and Special Techniques (Appendix IV) Appendix V * Quantitative Results of Accident Sequences Appendix VI * Calculation of Reactor Accident Consequences Appendix VII - X * Release of Radioactivity in Reactor Accidents (Appendix VII) * Physical Processes in Reactor Meltdown Accidents (Appendix VIII) * Safety Design Rationale for Nuclear Power Plants (Appendix IX) * Design Adequacy (Appendix X)

Just as corrosion is eating away at the 1957-vintage Chalk River reactor, so too is there is a general erosion of confidence in Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. The shutdown of AECL's ancient reactor at Chalk River is drawing international attention, because without the reactor Canada is unable to continue supplying a large percentage of the world's medical isotopes, which are critical for medical scans. AECL's ongoing reactor follies are a national headache, and it's no wonder the federal government is now looking to sell its stake in the ailing energy giant. A year ago, the Harper government put a stop on the Maple reactor project -- which was to replace the Chalk River jalopy -- after the project was 600 per cent over budget and six years late, not to mention the nagging suspicion that the reactors don't work.

(Host) Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin says he'll push another bill next year that would force Vermont Yankee's owners to put aside money to close the plant. The Legislature has passed a similar bill twice now and both times Governor Jim Douglas has vetoed it. Shumlin says he thinks the situation has changed because the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has identified Yankee as one of the plants that doesn't have enough money to pay for decommissioning. (Shumlin) "Even the NRC now says we've got a problem. We think it's reasonable to expect that we can convince the governor that this is a prudent thing to do to protect Vermont ratepayers." (Host) Shumlin argues that it will cost one billion dollars to shut down and clean up the Yankee site in Vernon. But the financial meltdown has reduced the amount the plant has in its decommissioning fund and it's short between $600 and $700 million right now.

A national poll of 800 residents conducted by the Polling Institute at Sacred Heart University found a pretty even split between those who think nuclear energy is very safe or somewhat safe (46.1 percent) and those who think it's very dangerous or somewhat dangerous (44.7 percent).. According to info distributed to the news media, Sacred Heart (based in Fairfield, Conn.) institute's poll found that a majority see nuclear waste as a danger, while they viewed wind as being the safest energy source. Also, about a third of the respondents thought that an increase in nuclear energy would lead to more nuclear weapons. Most of the polled indivdiuals supported the EPA's designation of CO2 as a public health threat. In a statement, Dr. Josh Klein, assistant professor in Sacred Heart's Department of Criminal Justice, said, "Americans are split about whether nuclear power is safe or not, and many people have specific security concerns about nuclear power. The two dangers that concern a majority of Americans are the problems with radioactive waste storage, a top criticism of nuclear power, and possible plant meltdowns.''

Nuclear power is quietly picking up more and more supporters. Marc Gunther, chairman of the Fortune Green Brainstorm conference even says, "It's Time To Rethink Nukes." It's a clean alternative to coal and unlike wind or solar, it's been proven to work. Sure there's nuclear waste, but there's trade-offs with every energy option. What could derail the public enthusiasm for more nuclear reactors? Just one slip up in a far off land:

I am writing this on April 26, 2009, the 23rd anniversary of the tragic and deadly explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine. The Chernobyl disaster is widely considered to be the biggest technological and industrial disaster the world has ever known. And I am remembering the 1979 meltdown at the nuclear plant on Three Mile Island, about 100 miles from where I currently sit. Today, about a block from my home, I can look to the west and see the cooling towers of the Limerick nuclear power plant sending a steady flow of steam into the sky. Each month, the power company Exelon, which operates the Limerick plant, conducts a siren test to ensure that the noisemakers are in good working order in case they need to notify the public of an emergency.

Anuclear plant reactor tries to safely contain more radioactivity than is in the fallout of 1,000 Hiroshima atom bombs. The Oyster Creek spent fuel rod pool contains much more deadly radioactivity. The pool has a flimsy roof that could easily be penetrated to cause a fuming meltdown. Who would have thought that the World Trade Center could be destroyed so easily? As for nuclear power plants, we haven't seen anything yet. There is an official rule. It says that a mere 10-mile evacuation zone is perfectly adequate. This is idiotic.

South and central New Jersey are Ground Zero, so to speak, concerning the future of aging U.S. nuclear electricity plants. The nation's oldest operating commercial plant, Oyster Creek in Lacy Township, awaits its fate, with its initial 40-year license set to expire this year. Meanwhile, PSEG Nuclear took official steps this month to extend the licenses of its three Salem County plants. And, Saturday was the 30th anniversary of the Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania. While it resulted in the meltdown of a reactor core, the containment walls worked. The U.S. nuclear industry still can point to a safety record that traces no deaths directly to a plant release. At Salem, the original license for Unit 1 expires in 2016, the Unit 2 license expires in 2020, and Hope Creek is licensed until 2026. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires considerable lead time for relicensing, and there should be sufficient time to answer questions from citizens, experts and the NRC itself.

Thirty years ago this Saturday, the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania malfunctioned, sparking a meltdown that resulted in the release of radioactivity. It was the worst nuclear accident in US history. The accident at Three Mile Island fueled the nuclear debate in this country that continues to rage to this day. We speak with anti-nuclear activist Harvey Wasserman. [includes rush transcript]

Arjun Mahkijani, president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, looks back at the Three Mile Island nuclear meltdown. The accident turned the public against nuclear power and Wall Street was reluctant to invest money in new plants. He tells host Bruce Gellerman that financing nukes may still be a risky business.

On March 28, 1979, there was a transient event at the second reactor at the Three Mile Island (TMI) nuclear plant just south of Harrisburg, the capital city of Pennsylvania. A transient event. It was the term used by a plant spokesman to describe the fact that all hell was on the verge of breaking loose. A broken pump, a stuck valve, a false reading, and operator error drained the water out of the second reactor, exposing the superheated core and threatening a meltdown and massive radiation release. The reactor core partially melted, but after three tense days, the containment system held. The nuclear industry's credibility didn't.

"The enormous technical and financial risks involved in the construction and operation of new nuclear power plants make them prohibitive for private investors, rebutting the thesis of a renaissance in nuclear energy, say several independent European studies. The risks include high construction costs, likely long delays in building, extended periods of depreciation of equipment inherent to the construction and operation of new power plants and the lack of guarantees for prices of electricity. Adding to these is the global meltdown and the consequent cautious behaviour of investors as also fiscal and revenue difficulties of governments in the industrialised countries, say the studies. In the most recent analysis on the feasibility of new nuclear power plants, the Citibank group concludes that some of "the risks faced by developers … are so large and variable that individually they could each bring even the largest utility company to its knees financially." "

"For three decades, the U.S. nuclear power industry has been the relative nobody wants to have over. In the aftermath of the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979, construction of new plants stopped and proposals to revive the business were met with scorn from environmentalists, consumer advocates and others who said nuclear was too costly and too risky. In the interim, existing facilities continued to quietly churn out power from remote locations."

"President Obama has called for a new generation of nuclear-power plants. But when he abandoned plans to store the nation's nuclear waste in Nevada's Yucca Mountain, he effectively forced states eager to break ground on reactors to accept the idea of keeping that waste within their borders-not a popular idea since the Three Mile Island meltdown. But could Kentucky become home to an alternative? Its state Senate recently approved a bill that would OK nuclear-waste storage. And Kerri Richardson, a spokeswoman for Gov. Steve Beshear, says storing other states' waste "would certainly attract a lot of interest from our administration." For a coal-rich area without an existing plant, Kentucky's openness is a sign, say energy analysts, that anxiety about waste storage is waning. It's "a tipping point," says Vanderbilt professor Charles Powers, an expert on nuclear-waste solutions. Still, don't expect resistance to end overnight: Kentucky's bill could die in the House, as did two previous versions. But if this isn't the year the state's nuclear future arrives, Beshear says he won't be deterred."

Unqualified welders and badly-mixed concrete are just two among 1,700 "quality deviations" that have dogged the construction of Europe's first nuclear plant since Chernobyl. It has turned into a costly €2.3bn (£2.1bn) nightmare for Areva, the company, leading the severely delayed build at Olkiluoto, a tranquil, pine-forested island off the coast of Finland. But Rob Davies, director of UK new nuclear for the French state-owned group, insists Britain's fleet of new reactors will not meet in the same fate. According to Mr Davies, Britain is at the forefront of Areva's plans to show it can deliver a fleet of stations on time, in budget and without safety hitches. For the UK to meet its 2020 targets on cutting emissions - which may even be tightened at the Copenhagen summit next week - it will be vital for Areva to deliver a flawless reactor ready for EDF's first plant in 2017.

Unqualified welders and badly-mixed concrete are just two among 1,700 "quality deviations" that have dogged the construction of Europe's first nuclear plant since Chernobyl. It has turned into a costly €2.3bn (£2.1bn) nightmare for Areva, the company, leading the severely delayed build at Olkiluoto, a tranquil, pine-forested island off the coast of Finland. But Rob Davies, director of UK new nuclear for the French state-owned group, insists Britain's fleet of new reactors will not meet in the same fate. According to Mr Davies, Britain is at the forefront of Areva's plans to show it can deliver a fleet of stations on time, in budget and without safety hitches. For the UK to meet its 2020 targets on cutting emissions - which may even be tightened at the Copenhagen summit next week - it will be vital for Areva to deliver a flawless reactor ready for EDF's first plant in 2017.

Speaking at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) on Monday, experts revealed a troublesome fact about Chernobyl, the Ukrainian nuclear power plant that blew up in 1986. Recent measurements in the exclusion zone, where no humans can go without protective equipment, have revealed that the radioactive material that was spilled in the area was nowhere near the decay level that was predicted for it. In other words, the scientists are saying that it will take a lot more time for the land to be cleansed than originally believed, Wired reports. Previous estimates, based on the fact that the Cesium 137's half-life is 30 years, estimated that the restriction zone could be lifted, and then re-inhabited soon. But experiments reveal that the radioactive material is not decaying as fast as predicted, and scientists have no clue as to why this is happening. The April 26, 1986 accident was the largest nuclear accident in the world, and only a level 7 event on the International Nuclear Event Scale. Its fallout was made worse by the Soviet Union's attempt at covering up the incident, which saw a lot of people exposed to lethal doses of radiations.

Speaking at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) on Monday, experts revealed a troublesome fact about Chernobyl, the Ukrainian nuclear power plant that blew up in 1986. Recent measurements in the exclusion zone, where no humans can go without protective equipment, have revealed that the radioactive material that was spilled in the area was nowhere near the decay level that was predicted for it. In other words, the scientists are saying that it will take a lot more time for the land to be cleansed than originally believed, Wired reports. Previous estimates, based on the fact that the Cesium 137's half-life is 30 years, estimated that the restriction zone could be lifted, and then re-inhabited soon. But experiments reveal that the radioactive material is not decaying as fast as predicted, and scientists have no clue as to why this is happening. The April 26, 1986 accident was the largest nuclear accident in the world, and only a level 7 event on the International Nuclear Event Scale. Its fallout was made worse by the Soviet Union's attempt at covering up the incident, which saw a lot of people exposed to lethal doses of radiations.

"A new environmental center in southern New Jersey aims to build the case for more nuclear power. New Jersey's largest utility, Public Service Energy Group, unveiled its Energy & Environmental Resource Center in Salem on Monday. The 6,000-square-foot facility features exhibits on climate change and electrical generation. The center is near Artificial Island, which is home to three nuclear plants. The company is seeking to have their licenses renewed and to build a fourth. Officials say one purpose of the education center is to promote nuclear power as an environmentally friendly way to generate electricity. Growth of nuclear power has been stalled in the U.S. since the Three Mile Island partial meltdown in 1979."

"This week's RFT feature story, "Meltdown in Venice" features Larry Burgan of Granite City, Illinois, and his fight to prove that his former employer is responsible for radiation poisoning that he believes damaged his health and the health of those who live nearby the factory. Here's a video interview we did with Burgan near Spectrulite Consortium's plant in Venice, Illinois."

"No new nuclear reactors have been constructed in the United States for a generation due to concerns about waste, safety and cost. Now some environmentalists think nuclear energy is key to solving the climate crisis. Private companies are investing in new technologies, and President Obama recently announced the federal government will provide loans for two large-scale nuclear reactors in Georgia. They are the first nuclear plants to be approved in America since the Three Mile Island meltdown. Leading nuclear innovators have settled here in the Pacific Northwest. We'll talk about the future of nuclear energy in Washington state and beyond."

"Poor countries need nuclear power, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said Monday, urging rich lenders to help pay for a global nuclear expansion in the interests of fighting climate change and feeding the growing world hunger for energy. Sarkozy recognized the danger of meltdowns or proliferation - and international worries about Iran's nuclear program. He stood firmly against those who "cheat" and use nuclear technology to make weapons."